Ex parte Hayslip, [Ms. 1180604, Dec. 6, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Mendheim,
J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ.,
concur; Wise, J., dissents) issues a writ of mandamus directing the Tuscaloosa
Circuit Court to dismiss New Pate, LLC’s 2018 action alleging a
fraudulent transfer claim.
The Court first noted that “a petition for writ of mandamus is the
appropriate vehicle for seeking review by this court of a denial of a
motion to dismiss a counterclaim,” Ms. *14, and that
“‘Under the logical-relationship standard, a counterclaim is
compulsory if ‘(1) its trial in the original action would avoid
a substantial duplication of effort or (2) the original claim and the
counterclaim arose out of the same aggregate core of operative facts.’
Ex parte Canal Ins. Co., 534 So. 2d 582, 584 (Ala. 1988) (quoting
Brooks v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Huntsville, 414 So. 2d 917, 919 (Ala. 1982)). In determining whether the claims ‘arose
out of the same aggregate core of operative facts,’ this Court must
determine whether ‘(1) the facts taken as a whole serve as the basis
for both claims or (2) the sum total of facts upon which the original
claim rests creates legal rights in a party which would otherwise remain
dormant.’
Canal Ins., 534 So. 2d at 584.
Ms. *16-17, quoting
Ex parte Cincinnati Insurance Companies, 806 So. 2d 376, 379-80 (Ala. 2001).
The Court held that New Pate’s fraudulent transfer claim asserted
in the 2018 action was barred because it should have been asserted as
a compulsory counterclaim in a prior action. The Court explained:
“The parties are the same in both actions. ... The facts serving
as the basis of Pate and New Pate’s fraudulent-transfer claim in
the present case have a logical relationship with the facts that served
as the basis of Hayslip’s interpleader claim filed in Case No. CV-2014-901204;
‘the facts taken as a whole serve as a basis for both claims.’
Ex parte Cincinnati Insurance, 806 So. 2d at 380.”
Ms. *21-22.